Have any of you considered the possibility that MS is purposely driving at 90%? I remember reading a quote where he said that it didn't matter if he was 4th or 10th..... I think that 2011 will be the defining moment of his career. He may be gone by monaco if he can't make it work. Regardless, the pressure will be immense.

In that case, if he succeeds in 2011, it will be even more momentous - excellent PR strategy, best story of the year, it will be phoenix from the ashes and further immortalize Schumacher´s stature. Let´s see if it is indeed planned and if he succeeds...

Then again, it could be all a fluke and an expression of his helplessness - at the moment I just see him smiling his telling smile and when I look beneath the mask I see insecurity.

It's an interesting question, that; when I, personally, read that quote - and others - early in the year I had no reason to disbelieve what Ross Brawn was saying. I did think it a bit much to state that he was 'still better than 90% of the field' before we'd seen him race again, however.

Now, though, I can only conclude that Brawn was wrong; he said he 'hoped to see the magic Schumacher' after a few races; he hasn't, has he?

In fact, Felipe was quite good in 2006. He was a solid points scorer, he had two victories, two poles, 4 podiums, and overall did a much better job than Fisichella, who finished the year behind Massa in WDC, and Massa was 3rd in the standings, right behind Schumacher.Schumacher was superior, but it's not like he 'wiped the floor' with Massa.It's Alonso who is destroying Massa today - Felipe did not even manage to get a victory or a pole this year.The gap between Alonso and Massa this year is much bigger than it was between Schumacher and Massa. Maybe it's a result of an injury, I don't know.

What was / is the relative performance difference between the 1996 Ferrari and the 2010 Mercedes ?

If there is debate about Schumacher's skills, then take him out of the equasion.

The 1996 Ferrari is a very underrated car. Schumi didn't qualify outside of the top 4 in it all season and people forget it occupied the entire 2nd row of the grid in its first race. Hardly the piece of crap many fans like to spin.

In fact, Felipe was quite good in 2006. He was a solid points scorer, he had two victories, two poles, 4 podiums, and overall did a much better job than Fisichella, who finished the year behind Massa in WDC, and Massa was 3rd in the standings, right behind Schumacher.Schumacher was superior, but it's not like he 'wiped the floor' with Massa.It's Alonso who is destroying Massa today - Felipe did not even manage to get a victory or a pole this year.The gap between Alonso and Massa this year is much bigger than it was between Schumacher and Massa. Maybe it's a result of an injury, I don't know.

There's a fallacy built up in the years Schumacher's been away that Massa was alreadygetting the upper hand on him in his final season. It's nonsense. It's based on nomore than the fact that Felipe won in Turkey and Brazil in the second half of theseason. But in both of those races there were specific reasons why Schumachercouldn't fight him.In Turkey an inopportunely-timed safety car meant he had to be queued in thepitlane, meaning Alonso's Renault was subsequently between the Ferraris, therebyforming a protective buffer for Massa. The only reason he was behind Massa in thefirst place was the much heavier fuel load he'd taken into Q3 and, when allowance wastaken of that, he was comfortably faster than his junior team-mate.In Brazil he could take no part in Q3 because of a fuel-pump failure, leaving Massa totake an uncontested pole, the foundation of his victory. Looking at Q2, wherestraightforward comparison was possible in each of those races, in Turkey Schumacherwas a whopping 1.2s faster than Massa, in Brazil he was 0.462s ahead. In the 54qualifying sessions of the 2006 season, Massa was genuinely quicker than Schumacheronly once - in Q2 at Monza, by 0.128s.Michael's average advantage over Massa in those 54 sessions was in excess of half asecond. That’s a staggering degree of superiority over a driver we now know is veryfast indeed, stats that Kimi Raikkonen would kill for, stats that will almost certainly notbe matched next year by Fernando Alonso. There is no evidence whatsoever thatMichael's pace was falling off in his final season.

And the statistics of Schumacher vs Massa I've done above.Remember, guys, that in 2006 Massa was a new man for Ferrari, fighting at the top for the first time.Today he had 3 years at Ferrari.Using him as a benchmark of comparing Schumacher of 2006 and Alonso of 2010 (and many say that Alonso today is a "shadow of his former self") does not exactly flatter Schumacher.

And the statistics of Schumacher vs Massa I've done above.Remember, guys, that in 2006 Massa was a new man for Ferrari, fighting at the top for the first time.Today he had 3 years at Ferrari.Using him as a benchmark of comparing Schumacher of 2006 and Alonso of 2010 (and many say that Alonso today is a "shadow of his former self") does not exactly flatter Schumacher.

It's an interesting question, that; when I, personally, read that quote - and others - early in the year I had no reason to disbelieve what Ross Brawn was saying. I did think it a bit much to state that he was 'still better than 90% of the field' before we'd seen him race again, however.

Now, though, I can only conclude that Brawn was wrong; he said he 'hoped to see the magic Schumacher' after a few races; he hasn't, has he?

Someone (I think sparkplug) said on an earlier page that Ross Brawn was generally a pragmatic guy and I certainly would agree with that. But I wonder whether he considers saying positive things about Schumacher is currently the pragmatic thing to do regardless of how he feels about it really? Actually I don't wonder at all, I'm pretty positive that he will say nice things to protect both his great commercial asset (Schumie) and his own reputation for continuing to hire him. Brawn isn't stupid.

And the statistics of Schumacher vs Massa I've done above.Remember, guys, that in 2006 Massa was a new man for Ferrari, fighting at the top for the first time.Today he had 3 years at Ferrari.Using him as a benchmark of comparing Schumacher of 2006 and Alonso of 2010 (and many say that Alonso today is a "shadow of his former self") does not exactly flatter Schumacher.

This is not my article. Nobody said that his wins were not fair and square.You said it´s not like he "wiped the floor' with Massa, but he did it and the figures don´t lie. Neither Massa´s speed increased during 06 nor Schumacher´s decreased. Massa just made less mistakes which translated into more points in the second half of 06

OK. Given that in the first half of the season Alonso was not exactly in good shape, severely criticised for his mistakes, losing quite a few points through these mistakes, and still he managed to do over the season the same thing with his teammate as Schumacher did in 2006.I'm not surprised that 2006 title went to Alonso. Even in 2010, with lots of rather stupid mistakes and in the first half of the season being "not himself", he performs on the level of 2006 Schumacher.

In fact, Felipe was quite good in 2006. He was a solid points scorer, he had two victories, two poles, 4 podiums, and overall did a much better job than Fisichella, who finished the year behind Massa in WDC, and Massa was 3rd in the standings, right behind Schumacher.Schumacher was superior, but it's not like he 'wiped the floor' with Massa.It's Alonso who is destroying Massa today - Felipe did not even manage to get a victory or a pole this year.The gap between Alonso and Massa this year is much bigger than it was between Schumacher and Massa. Maybe it's a result of an injury, I don't know.

The gap is not bigger. You have to look a bit deeper into your analyse.

OK. Given that in the first half of the season Alonso was not exactly in good shape, severely criticised for his mistakes, losing quite a few points through these mistakes, and still he managed to do over the season the same thing with his teammate as Schumacher did in 2006.I'm not surprised that 2006 title went to Alonso. Even in 2010, with lots of rather stupid mistakes and in the first half of the season being "not himself", he performs on the level of 2006 Schumacher.

I see quite a similarity between 06/10. Speed was not an issue for both Alonso/Schumacher in those years but both did/do too much small blunders.In 06 Alonso was almost faultless, that´s why Michael missed the title. In 10 Alonso´s competition is harldy faultless, that´s why he is still in the title hunt.

Keke drove for Williams under Patrick Head's technical direction for four years. He had the reputation as the fastest man in F1. Then he moves to a new team with a new technical direction and struggles, mainly because he and the designer of the MP4/2C had fundamental differences of opinion as to how to balance the car.

Keke drove for Williams under Patrick Head's technical direction for four years. He had the reputation as the fastest man in F1. Then he moves to a new team with a new technical direction and struggles, mainly because he and the designer of the MP4/2C had fundamental differences of opinion as to how to balance the car.

I can understand what you are attempting to say but;

A) Rosberg did not have the reputation of being the fastest man prior to 1986. He had the reputation for being the most spectacular with perhaps the best car control and B) M Schumacher was not attributed with these two traits just before the 2010 season got underway.

If I had to compare M Schumachers situation with anybody from yesteryear, the name Nelson Piquet springs to mind but of course with big differences. The similarities are that Piquet had his Brabham team moulded around him after producing a decent show alongside Niki Lauda just before the Austrian retired ( rather like what M Schumacher did alongside the Brazilian a decade later). Piquet had teammates like Rebaque, the Fabi brothers, Surer and Patrese. In 1986 however he moved to Williams into what many believed as an automatic number 1 having been double world champion - alongside Mansell. Mansell was the first genuine quality teammate the Brazilian faced and in a new team environment without Bernie to support him, Mansell comprehensively beat Piquet for two seasons. Hence, Piquets reputation went down like a lead balloon.

Keke drove for Williams under Patrick Head's technical direction for four years. He had the reputation as the fastest man in F1. Then he moves to a new team with a new technical direction and struggles, mainly because he and the designer of the MP4/2C had fundamental differences of opinion as to how to balance the car.

Hmph, fastest man in F1? The guy that lucked into the '82 championship because Pironi was taken out? Who won a grand total of 5 races in his entire career?

And the statistics of Schumacher vs Massa I've done above.Remember, guys, that in 2006 Massa was a new man for Ferrari, fighting at the top for the first time.Today he had 3 years at Ferrari.Using him as a benchmark of comparing Schumacher of 2006 and Alonso of 2010 (and many say that Alonso today is a "shadow of his former self") does not exactly flatter Schumacher.

Massa is scoring closer in % to Alonso's points that to Schumacher's.This does not take into account that Schumacher's 2006 last 2 races were luck disasters, leading Suzuka while the engine went off, having car problems in brazil Q and getting hit by fisichella in the race putting him back

correcting these you would have hadSch 121 + 10 (Suzuka) + 5 (winning Brazil) =136Felipe 80-2 (3rd in Suzuka, not 2nd) -2 (2nd in Brazil) =76Massa would have been ~55% of MSC's points

Flip it any way you want, Massa is a lot closer in points this year to Alonso than he was to Michael in 2006.

Hmph, fastest man in F1? The guy that lucked into the '82 championship because Pironi was taken out? Who won a grand total of 5 races in his entire career?

While I agree with the viewpoint that Keke wasnt recognised as the fastest driver going into the 1986 season (I think Senna was already acknowledged to be the fastest going into 1986 although not the finished article) I believe your post sells Keke short. Yes, he won a grand total of 5 races but he never had the equipment to clock up wins that other drivers had the fortune to. He was superb in the cosworth powered Williams in 1982 against the turbo Renault's, Ferrari's and BMW's. In 1983 the Cosworth had no chance at all against the turbos who had an extra season of development and when he fnnaly did get the Honda turbo, it was a crude powerplant and it was until 1985 that the package was sorted but then it was too late as he signed for McLaren.

While I agree with the viewpoint that Keke wasnt recognised as the fastest driver going into the 1986 season (I think Senna was already acknowledged to be the fastest going into 1986 although not the finished article) I believe your post sells Keke short. Yes, he won a grand total of 5 races but he never had the equipment to clock up wins that other drivers had the fortune to. He was superb in the cosworth powered Williams in 1982 against the turbo Renault's, Ferrari's and BMW's. In 1983 the Cosworth had no chance at all against the turbos who had an extra season of development and when he fnnaly did get the Honda turbo, it was a crude powerplant and it was until 1985 that the package was sorted but then it was too late as he signed for McLaren.

In 1983 the Cosworth had no chance at all against the turbos who had an extra season of development and when he fnnaly did get the Honda turbo, it was a crude powerplant and it was until 1985 that the package was sorted but then it was too late as he signed for McLaren.

Indeed. The McLaren-TAG that made Prost a champion in 1986 with 4 wins and 72 points, whereas Rosberg scored only 22 points and his best finish of the season was a single second place.

If I had to compare M Schumachers situation with anybody from yesteryear, the name Nelson Piquet springs to mind but of course with big differences. The similarities are that Piquet had his Brabham team moulded around him after producing a decent show alongside Niki Lauda just before the Austrian retired ( rather like what M Schumacher did alongside the Brazilian a decade later). Piquet had teammates like Rebaque, the Fabi brothers, Surer and Patrese. In 1986 however he moved to Williams into what many believed as an automatic number 1 having been double world champion - alongside Mansell. Mansell was the first genuine quality teammate the Brazilian faced and in a new team environment without Bernie to support him, Mansell comprehensively beat Piquet for two seasons. Hence, Piquets reputation went down like a lead balloon.

True to some extent, but Piquet did take his third title in '87 (the second season you are referring to), in a team that had turned hostile and favored local boy Mansell. Mansell was faster on many occassions and collected more wins, but to say that Piquet was 'comprehensively beaten' is overstating the case.

Indeed. The McLaren-TAG that made Prost a champion in 1986 with 4 wins and 72 points, whereas Rosberg scored only 22 points and his best finish of the season was a single second place.

This thread isn't about Rosberg but you have missed the point I believe. He was a very quick driver (his stunning qualifier at Silverstone that blew everyone away) to his great final drive in Adelaide where he was much quicker than his teammate Prost after finally being allowed to set the car up to his desired oversteer. The point was that how could such a fast guy have such a terrible season at McLaren. Keke wasn't one to make excuses and acknowledged Prost but most who were around to see it knew Keke was extremely quick when the car suited his style. I viewed champion elect Prost at Adelaide in 1985 and he was dismally disinterested, as a "professor" with nothing in the way of points to gain should be. On the other hand Rosberg was visibly the only guy who could foot it with Senna.

I think this is the only possible explanation for why Michael is so slow relative to his teammate - the car doesn't suit. However in 1986 McLaren built their team around Prost who had been there two seasons already. The same can't be said for Nico Rosberg at Mercedes but maybe, the 2011 car will somehow vault Michael ahead of Nico.

I think the Massa Alonso comparisons are somewhat skewed by Felipe's head injury. I'm sure he has lost a tenth or two, but certainly Alonso deserves great credit, on track at least, for his two WDCs, beating Michael, and 2010 at Ferrari from mid season on.

It's been an interesting season so far,although it's not really worse than what I expected after the pre-season testing,considering all the variables stacked against him. There's no doubt he hasn't achieved what many people expected of him in 2010,but I'm not one of those people so nothing has changed over the course of this season,as far as I'm concerned. Raikkonen was blasted in 2007 and 2008 as has MS in 2010,with no consideration for the fundamental incompatibility between driving style/car+tyre package. I think a lot of F1 fans are unwilling to accept F1 is a lot more random these days and that the car matters a whole lot more than it used to in the past: I'm sure they'll come around to changing their opinions when a driver comes out and says it like it is,though. This random 'Raikkonen sucks,Massa has lost it,Schumacher is past it' nonsense is the bane of F1 in the internet age and the attendant ADDs.

His move on NH at Singapore was a bit weird,I haven't seen him make a lunge like that in ages...can only imagine how frustrated he must've been at that point in the race.

I think this is the only possible explanation for why Michael is so slow relative to his teammate - the car doesn't suit. However in 1986 McLaren built their team around Prost who had been there two seasons already. The same can't be said for Nico Rosberg at Mercedes but maybe, the 2011 car will somehow vault Michael ahead of Nico.

I don't really believe that the MGP cars (or their tires) are all that bad. Rosberg is just 6 points behind on Massa, and although he has been impressively consistent I would not attribute his performance solely to his talent. The car has not failed him (other than a loose wheel in Hungary).

Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that Schu may not be as good as he once was. No shame in that. I am not a fan, but I commend him for putting his reputation on the line like that, simply because he wants to race again. He had all to lose and little to gain, as we can see now. That deserves respect.

A) Rosberg did not have the reputation of being the fastest man prior to 1986.

If you asked any F1 commentator, journo, whatever in the years 83 - 85 who they considered to be the outright fastest man in the field I doubt there would be many who named anyone other than Rosberg. Whether they were right or not is far from the point, but the original poster was correct in saying that - at that point - Rosberg was 'considered' the fsatest in the field.

What was / is the relative performance difference between the 1996 Ferrari and the 2010 Mercedes ?

If there is debate about Schumacher's skills, then take him out of the equasion.

The relative performance between the 2010 Mercedes and 1996 Ferrari wouldn't be really comparable really.

In 1996 there was Williams and then..............Ferrari. The gap could have been 30 seconds between the two in terms of raw pace but the car was still the second best car out there (in Schumacher's hands anyway). Where conditions permitted or when Williams failed, Schumacher picked up the points.

Now, you have three or maybe four teams in between

In 2010 if Ferrari, Mclaren and Renault (or the Williams) didn't exist, and the Red Bulls proved unreliable or kept driving into each other or other things then Mercedes would have won too. It's all relative though. If only Red Bull and HRT were racing, the HRT would be contesting the podium regularly too.

MS gets way too much credit for the return to form of Ferrari... the process started with LdM taking over then recruiting Todt then MS got lucky when Senna died as it was Senna that was meant to go to Ferrari (... for a boat load of cash). Then all the other key technical people (some of whom were also in Benetton with MS) signed up and the rest is history.

Giving MS credit for Ferrari's former dominance is like crediting MW for the rise of Redbull (because he happenned to be there when it happened) and ignoring the input of Horner, Newey and a number of others.

Your comparison is spot on - to claim that Webber has been bringing Red Bull to the top, when there was Horner, Newey, Coulthard and others involved in it is as ridiculous as the constant claims of some parties on this BB that Schumacher pulled a miracle by bringing Ferrari back to the top - MS was one part of it, and possibly not even the major part, as we have seen in many instances.

MS should get credit for being one of the greatest drivers in the history of the sport (which in my opinion he showed more in 1993 to 1999 more than in 2000 to 2004)... but nothing else.

That´s about it. To put Schumacher on a higher pedestal has always been wrong IMHO.

..... once Fernando Alonso had better machinery than Schumacher the magic of his early years (ie being able to fight for the title against superior cars) was found to have gone and Ferrari ushered him out for the guy who appeared at the time to be the pick of the next generation of drivers.

Very well said - Ferrari saw of course the telemetry recordings of Schumacher in 2005 and 2006 and saw that he was waning. That is why Kimi was ushered in....

.... bringing Ferrari back to the top - MS was one part of it, and possibly not even the major part.....

I have no claim to being a Schumacher 'fan' or anything such but this comment is just trying to put the man down for the sake of it. Michael was, without doubt, THE major part of teh Ferrarui revival that began in the mid-90's, as it was he who gave inspiration to galvanise what was a confused set up into a well driven team. I doubt that any other driver of that era would have been able to provide that central focus point that Michael brought to the party.

MS gets way too much credit for the return to form of Ferrari... the process started with LdM taking over then recruiting Todt then MS got lucky when Senna died as it was Senna that was meant to go to Ferrari (... for a boat load of cash). Then all the other key technical people (some of whom were also in Benetton with MS) signed up and the rest is history.

In a very real sense it was not an "era Schumacher" we were witnessing but an "era Montezemolo" that is still ongoing. LdM put the prancing horse back on track in a remarkable way since he returned to Ferrari after being the executive organizer of the Soccer World Championship in Italy. Compared to Luca the Dennis´and Briartore´s of this world di Montezemolo is in a totally different level in terms of leadership, even if his methods (The Horse Whisperer...) are quite peculiar, to say the least.

Then again, Schumacher´s methods have always been quite peculiar (to put it mildly) and he was lucky enough that Senna was not available any more to take the Ferrari seat.

I have no claim to being a Schumacher 'fan' or anything such but this comment is just trying to put the man down for the sake of it. Michael was, without doubt, THE major part of teh Ferrarui revival that began in the mid-90's...

I have no claim to being a Webber "fan" or anything such but Mark was, without doubt, THE major part of the Red Bull ascendence to fame that began in the late 2000s.....

I have no claim to being a Webber "fan" or anything such but Mark was, without doubt, THE major part of the Red Bull ascendence to fame that began in the late 2000s.....

But that's not a claim that can be made, is it? I read your posts - often with amusement - and you do tend to seek every opportunity to hit below the belt where Schumacher is concerned. I agree with a lot of your posts, to be fair, but to claim that Michael played little part in the Ferrari revival is quite ridiculous (and to attempt, rather limply, to compare that situation to Webber and Red Bull is not even worth trying).

I understand that you don't like Schumacher - as I said, I'm not a particular fan either - but if you are someone who watches and enjoys F1, and motor racing, and you have a modicum of intelligence you have to accept the bloke was bloody good in his prime - better, without any argument, than most of his peers. You also cannot possibly look at the Ferrari situation and say 'well, of course, it would all have happened without Schumacher' as that's not only supposition but on very dodgy ground; I'm not after an argument - more an enlightening discussion - but who else do you see as having been a potential alternative to Schumacher when he moved to Ferrari? Who else do you see as a driver who - as we all known Schumacher did - motivated that team to such a level? I have to be honest and say i can't think of anyone.

If you asked any F1 commentator, journo, whatever in the years 83 - 85 who they considered to be the outright fastest man in the field I doubt there would be many who named anyone other than Rosberg. Whether they were right or not is far from the point, but the original poster was correct in saying that - at that point - Rosberg was 'considered' the fsatest in the field.

Off topic.

What you like to present as fact is anything but. It is your opinion, and an opinion which is not quite reality. Rosberg was known as one of the fastest but I would say Prost after the death of Gilles between 1982 and 1985 had a reputation for being the fastest from memory and Piquet had the reputation (until Prost won his first WDC) as being the most complete driver. Going into the 1986 season Senna was known as the fastest with his performances for Toleman and his 2 wins and plenty of poles in 1985. Keke was known for being the most spectacular and for having the best car control, not for being the fastest.

What diminished Rosberg's reputation were his performances alongside Mansell in 1985. Though Keke got the better of Nige over the season, Nige went to Williams having been shown the door at Lotus and many expected him to be merely supporting Keke. This was before Nige became the star he was from 1986 onwards. Nige's performances alongside Keke made many people re-evaluate both the potential of Nige and the status of Rosberg. Having taken a bit of time to integrate into the Williams team which was Keke's own since 1982, Nige out-qualified him in the second half of the season. To remind you, Nige was not rated that highly then, Derek Warwick was considered the main British hope.

Michael was, without doubt, THE major part of teh Ferrarui revival that began in the mid-90's, as it was he who gave inspiration to galvanise what was a confused set up into a well driven team. I doubt that any other driver of that era would have been able to provide that central focus point that Michael brought to the party.